Subdeakon Nektarios, MA
Oleh Uskup Photius dari Triaditsa
Karya Profesor T. Sibiff, The Church Calendar Question , yang muncul seperempat abad yang lalu dengan tujuan untuk menetapkan dasar teologis bagi reformasi Kalender Gereja yang dilembagakan di Bulgaria pada tahun 1968, sering mengutip apa yang disebut Kongres “Pan-Ortodoks” yang berlangsung dari tanggal 10 Mei hingga 8 Juni 1923 di Konstantinopel. [1] Penulis mengutip keputusan kongres ini mengenai revisi kalender Julian, [2] yang mencakup penggantian kalender Julian dengan apa yang disebut “Kalender Julian Baru,” yang sebenarnya sesuai dengan kalender Gregorian Barat hingga tahun 2800. Profesor Sibiff merujuk pada Kongres di Konstantinopel, tanpa malu-malu lebih suka menyebutnya sebagai “Pertemuan Ortodoks.” Baginya, seperti halnya bagi semua pendukung reformasi kalender, Kongres tersebut memiliki otoritas yang tak terbantahkan sebagai forum Gereja.
Mukjizat Tanda Salib di Athena pada tahun 1925
Pada saat yang sama, mengabaikan fakta tidak dapat menutupi perbedaan kanonik yang serius dari Kongres di Konstantinopel. Menurut kata-kata Profesor C. Troitsky, “Tidak diragukan lagi bahwa sejarawan Gereja Ortodoks di masa depan akan dipaksa untuk mengakui bahwa Kongres tahun 1923 adalah peristiwa paling menyedihkan dalam kehidupan Gereja di abad ke-20.” [3] Dengan menyebut dirinya “Pan-Ortodoks” tanpa dasar apa pun, Kongres di Konstantinopel membuka jalan untuk mengubah Kalender Gereja Patristik dan memulai percepatan Gereja Ortodoks menuju modernisme. Terlepas dari kenyataan bahwa, sejak awal, keputusan Kongres ditolak oleh hampir semua Gereja Ortodoks lokal, Kongres di Konstantinopel berhasil menghancurkan kesatuan liturgi dan perayaan Gereja Ortodoks. Kalender reformasi secara bertahap diperkenalkan ke banyak Gereja lokal. Akibatnya, terjadi perpecahan tragis dalam praktik liturgi tidak hanya di antara Gereja-gereja lokal individual, tetapi juga di dalam Gereja-gereja lokal itu sendiri yang secara resmi telah menerima inovasi yang tidak kanonik ini.
Bagaimana iklim spiritual-filosofis yang melahirkan Kongres “Pan-Ortodoks” di Konstantinopel ini? Siapa yang memprakarsainya? Siapa saja delegasinya, dan apa status kanoniknya? Apa saja kegiatan dan keputusannya? Ini adalah pertanyaan-pertanyaan utama yang akan dibahas secara singkat di sini. Pada akhir abad kesembilan belas dan dekade pertama abad kedua puluh, kehidupan spiritual bangsa-bangsa Ortodoks mengalami guncangan dan perubahan yang mendalam. Di satu sisi, di kalangan kaum intelektual dan kelas atas, pola pikir duniawi dan materialistis dengan cepat berkembang dan menjadi mapan, dan pemahaman tentang nilai-nilai spiritual berada di bawah pengaruh gerakan neo-pagan yang kuat dalam budaya Barat. Di sisi lain, kalangan teologis dan Gereja diracuni oleh gagasan-gagasan yang tumbuh dari ekumenisme Protestan.
Para hierarki dan teolog Ortodoks mulai memperhatikan seruan untuk “persatuan semua umat Kristen.” Satu-satunya jalan kembali yang mungkin bagi mereka yang telah menjauh dari Gereja Kristus yang Satu dan Tak Terpisahkan adalah melalui pertobatan. “Persatuan semua umat Kristen” tidak dapat ditemukan dengan mencari bahasa yang sama, melakukan kegiatan bersama, atau bahkan dalam persatuan dalam doa antara berbagai denominasi. Dengan kata lain, jalan menuju persatuan tidak ditemukan di sepanjang jalan yang terkikis dan kabur, melainkan melalui pertobatan dan kembali kepada Ortodoksi [4]. Kedua ensiklik Patriark Joachim III dari Konstantinopel (1879–1884; 1901–1912), yang secara umum berpegang pada tradisi, namun demikian merupakan dokumen resmi pertama Patriark Konstantinopel di mana kita sudah dapat merasakan awal pandangan ekumenis [5].
Di bawah pengaruh tidak langsung dari ide-ide progresif dan revolusioner yang kuat, yang berawal dari dan didukung oleh mereka yang diinisiasi ke dalam Freemasonry [yang berupaya menyatukan semua orang, tetapi menolak kebenaran eksklusif Ortodoksi], pemikiran bebas beragama diperkenalkan ke dalam Ortodoksi. Pemikiran bebas ini terutama menjadi ciri khas dari apa yang disebut kebangkitan keagamaan Rusia selama beberapa dekade pertama abad ini. Pemikiran bebas beragama membuka jalan bagi renovasionisme di Rusia — manifestasi pertama modernisme yang membentuk dirinya menjadi “Gereja Ortodoks” (sebenarnya Protestanisme ritus Timur yang baru) di abad kita. Renovasionisme adalah gerakan keagamaan yang dicirikan di Rusia pasca-revolusi, dalam bentuknya yang paling ekstrem dan kasar, dan di dunia Ortodoks Yunani tahun 1920-an, dengan kemiripan yang sesuai. Ilustrasi kecenderungan renovasionis adalah Konsili “Gereja Hidup” di Rusia (dibuka 16/29 April 1923), dan “Kongres Pan-Ortodoks” di Konstantinopel (10 Mei–8 Juni 1923), yang berlangsung hampir bersamaan. Terlepas dari kenyataan bahwa Kongres Konstantinopel membuat resolusi untuk membela Patriark Tikhon dan dengan demikian, dalam beberapa hal, memisahkan diri dari Gereja Hidup, keputusan kedua forum tersebut tetap sangat mirip: keduanya mengubah Kalender Gereja, mengizinkan pernikahan kedua bagi para pendeta dan menerbitkan deklarasi serupa lainnya, membahas reformasi dalam semangat liberalisme agama, yang tidak terpikirkan hanya beberapa tahun sebelumnya.
Langkah penting Konstantinopel menuju semangat ekumenis dalam politik Gereja diungkapkan dalam sebuah ensiklik yang diterbitkan pada Januari 1920 oleh Pelaksana Tugas Takhta Patriarkat, Metropolitan Dorotheos dari Brussa (1919–1921) dengan judul, “Kepada Gereja-Gereja Kristen di Seluruh Dunia.” Pergeseran dramatis Patriarkat Ekumenis menuju kemurtadan, khususnya dalam hal ekumenisme, didahului dan disertai oleh banyak faktor filosofis-politik. Pada akhir Perang Dunia Pertama, Yunani adalah negara pemenang. Kekalahan Turki membawa kesuksesan yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya bagi kelompok politik yang dipimpin oleh Mason, Eleftherios Venizelos (1864–1936). Yunani telah berdiri teguh di pihak Entente dan telah menyatakan perang terhadap pemerintah Aliansi Tiga. Setelah berakhirnya perang, menurut Perjanjian Perdamaian Nicea (1919) dan Sevres (1920), Yunani diberi Epirus utara, bagian barat dan hampir seluruh Thrace timur, pulau-pulau Aegea Imroz, Tenedos, dan Dodecanese, serta wilayah yang cukup luas di Asia Kecil dengan pusatnya di Smyrna. Meskipun demikian, pihak Venizelos tidak puas dengan akuisisi ini, tetapi dengan gigih berjuang untuk membangkitkan kembali Kekaisaran Bizantium kuno dengan ibu kotanya di Konstantinopel.
Pendudukan Konstantinopel oleh Sekutu (16 Maret 1920–6 Oktober 1923) tampaknya mempercepat terwujudnya keinginan ini. Para pemimpin lingkaran Gereja di Konstantinopel terpengaruh oleh semangat politik-nasionalistik sekutu politik Venizelos. Patriark Ekumenis lebih memilih bersekutu dengan tentara pendudukan Inggris daripada dengan pemerintah Turki terkait berbagai masalah sipil. Metropolitan Dorotheos, sebagai Pelaksana Tugas Takhta Patriarkat, mengunjungi negara-negara Eropa Barat pada tahun 1920, termasuk Inggris, untuk mempengaruhi lingkaran pemerintahan agar berpihak pada Yunani. Ia bahkan menyarankan kepada negara-negara besar gagasan untuk melikuidasi pemerintah Turki.
Faktor-faktor utama yang mendorong Takhta Konstantinopel menuju gagasan ekumenisme dan kolaborasi aktif dengan organisasi ekumenis Barat adalah kepentingan nasional-politik para hierarki Konstantinopel, harapan mereka untuk menerima bantuan dari anggota Entente melawan Turki, wabah liberalisme Kristen yang terus menyebar, gerakan ekumenis yang berkembang pada tahun-tahun pascaperang, dan campur tangan langsung para politisi dan hierarki Masonik dalam urusan Gereja.
Pada awal Ensiklik tahun 1920, diumumkan bahwa Gereja Konstantinopel mempertimbangkan kemungkinan untuk mendekatkan diri dan bersekutu dengan “Gereja-gereja Kristen” lainnya meskipun terdapat perbedaan dogmatis di antara mereka. Komunitas-komunitas heterodoks disebut “Gereja-gereja Kristen yang terhormat,” yang “bukanlah asing atau jauh, melainkan sebuah keluarga dan dekat di dalam Kristus.” Mereka juga disebut “sesama pewaris, yang membentuk satu tubuh dan merupakan peserta janji-janji Allah di dalam Kristus.” Ensiklik tersebut menyarankan pendirian “suatu perkumpulan Gereja-gereja” [6]. Sebagai tanda langkah pertama menuju persatuan, ensiklik tersebut menyarankan “penerimaan satu kalender untuk perayaan universal hari-hari suci utama umat Kristen” [7]. Dokumen ini tidak hanya mengumumkan awal pengkhianatan Konstantinopel, dan persatuannya dengan bidah ekumenis, tetapi juga tidak kanonik; karena pada kenyataannya, dokumen ini ditujukan hanya oleh salah satu Gereja Ortodoks setempat kepada komunitas-komunitas heterodoks yang sesat, yang menyebut mereka sebagai “Gereja-gereja Kristen di seluruh dunia.” Ensiklik tersebut berbicara dengan angkuh mengenai pertanyaan-pertanyaan dogmatis dan kanonik yang sangat penting atas nama semua Gereja lokal, seolah-olah untuk seluruh Gereja Ortodoks. Dengan demikian, ensiklik tersebut menjadi upaya publik pertama Takhta Konstantinopel untuk merebut otoritas Gereja Ortodoks yang Satu dan Kudus [8].
Sehubungan dengan ensiklik tahun 1920, yang diterbitkan dan didistribusikan tanpa persetujuan Gereja-gereja saudara lainnya, Patriarkat Ekumenis menjalin kerja sama resmi dengan perwakilan gerakan ekumenis. Pada bulan Agustus 1920 di Jenewa, Patriarkat Ekumenis ikut serta dalam kongres pendahuluan tentang masalah “Iman dan Organisasi”, tanpa persetujuan Gereja-gereja Ortodoks lainnya.
Hampir setahun kemudian Patriark Ekumenis Meletius IV (1921–1923) yang baru terpilih, yang akan kita bahas secara rinci di bawah ini, mengumumkan dalam pidato penobatannya, “Saya menyerahkan diri untuk melayani Gereja sejak Cathedra pertamanya untuk mengembangkan, sebisa mungkin, hubungan yang lebih dekat dan bersahabat dengan gereja-gereja non-Ortodoks di Timur dan Barat dan untuk memajukan pekerjaan persatuan di antara kita” [9]. Pengakuan iman ekumenis yang sama ini diakui oleh sahabat dan rekan Meletius IV, Chrysostomos, Uskup Agung Athena (1923–1938) yang memperkenalkan Kalender Baru ke dalam Gereja Yunani. Inilah yang dikatakan Chrysostomos dalam pidato penobatannya, “…untuk kerja sama semacam itu [dengan kaum heterodoks] tidak perlu memiliki landasan bersama atau persatuan dogmatis, persatuan kasih Kristen sudah cukup” [10].
Hubungan erat dengan politik Eropa pasca perang, dengan gerakan ekumenis, dan dengan lingkaran Masonik di Yunani dan luar negeri yang ditimbulkan oleh upaya nasionalistik hierarki di Konstantinopel menghasilkan buah yang paling pahit pada awal tahun 1920-an ketika Meletius IV (1871–1935) naik takhta Konstantinopel dan menjadi penyelenggara serta inspirasi bagi Kongres “Pan-Ortodoks” tahun 1923.
Siapakah Meletius Metaxakis?
Nama aslinya di dunia adalah Emmanuel Metaxakis. Ia lahir pada tanggal 21 September 1871, di desa Parsas di pulau Kreta. Ia masuk Seminari Salib Suci di Yerusalem pada tahun 1889. Ia ditahbiskan dengan nama Meletius dan diangkat menjadi hierodeakon pada tahun 1892. Ia menyelesaikan kursus teologi di Salib Suci dan ditugaskan sebagai sekretaris Sinode Suci di Yerusalem oleh Patriark Damianos pada tahun 1900. Meletius diusir dari Tanah Suci oleh Patriark Damianos, bersama dengan administrator saat itu, Chrysostomos, yang kemudian menjadi Uskup Agung Athena pada tahun 1908 karena “aktivitas melawan Makam Suci” [11]. Meletius Metaxakis kemudian terpilih sebagai Metropolitan Kition pada tahun 1910. Pada tahun-tahun sebelum perang, Metropolitan Meletius memulai pembicaraan yang sukses di New York dengan perwakilan Gereja Episkopal Amerika, dengan tujuan “memperluas hubungan antara kedua Gereja” [12].
Setelah kematian Patriark Joachim III pada tanggal 13 Juni 1912, Meletius dinominasikan sebagai kandidat untuk Takhta Patriarkat di Konstantinopel [13]. Namun, Sinode Suci memutuskan bahwa Meletius tidak dapat didaftarkan secara kanonik sebagai kandidat [14]. Dengan dukungan sekutu politik dan kenalannya, ia diangkat secara tidak kanonik ke posisi Uskup Agung Athena pada tahun 1918, tetapi setelah perubahan politik yang biasa terjadi, ia dicopot dari jabatannya. Posisinya digantikan, pada tanggal 10 Desember 1920, oleh kandidat kanonik yang sah, Theocletos, yang sebelumnya telah dicopot secara tidak adil sebagai Uskup Agung. Saat Meletius masih menjadi Uskup Agung Athena, ia bersama sekelompok orang yang sepaham mengunjungi Inggris di mana ia melakukan pembicaraan mengenai persatuan antara Gereja Anglikan dan Gereja Ortodoks. Pada bulan Februari 1921, Meletius mengunjungi Amerika Serikat. Pada tanggal 17 Desember 1921, Duta Besar Yunani di Washington mengirim pesan kepada prefek di Tesalonika yang menyatakan bahwa Meletius “mengenakan jubah, mengambil bagian dalam kebaktian Anglikan, berlutut dalam doa bersama umat Anglikan, menghormati Meja Suci mereka, memberikan khotbah, dan kemudian memberkati mereka yang hadir”[15].
Pada saat itu, sidang pendahuluan diadakan, yang diselenggarakan oleh profesor universitas Paul Karolidis mengenai pengaduan terhadap Meletius Metaxakis. Diputuskan bahwa Meletius harus dipanggil ke pengadilan di hadapan Sinode Suci Gereja Yunani. Sinode menerbitkan laporan pada tanggal 21 November 1921, yang menyerukan pembentukan “komite investigasi” terhadap Meletius [16]. Meskipun investigasi sedang berlangsung terhadap Metaxakis, ia secara tak terduga terpilih sebagai Patriark Konstantinopel. Terlepas dari pemilihan tersebut, Sinode Suci Gereja Yunani mencopot Meletius Metaxakis pada tanggal 29 Desember 1921, karena serangkaian pelanggaran terhadap hukum kanon dan karena menyebabkan perpecahan [17]. Terlepas dari keputusan ini, Meletius Metaxakis diangkat sebagai Patriark Ekumenis pada tanggal 24 Januari 1922. Di bawah tekanan politik yang kuat, pencopotan Meletius secara tidak kanonik dicabut pada tanggal 24 September 1922.
Lingkaran politik di sekitar Venizelos dan Gereja Anglikan telah terlibat dalam pemilihan Meletius sebagai Patriark [18]. Metropolitan Germanos (Karavangelis) dari Sinode Suci Konstantinopel menulis tentang peristiwa ini, “Pemilihan saya pada tahun 1921 ke Takhta Ekumenis tidak dipertanyakan. Dari tujuh belas suara yang diberikan, enam belas mendukung saya. Kemudian salah satu teman awam saya menawarkan saya 10.000 lira jika saya mau melepaskan pencalonan saya demi Meletius Metaxakis. Tentu saja saya menolak tawarannya, merasa tidak senang dan jijik. Kemudian suatu malam sebuah delegasi yang terdiri dari tiga orang tiba-tiba mengunjungi saya dari “Liga Pertahanan Nasional” dan dengan sungguh-sungguh memohon kepada saya untuk melepaskan pencalonan saya demi Meletius Metaxakis.
Para delegasi mengatakan bahwa Meletius dapat mendatangkan $100.000 untuk Patriarkat dan, karena ia memiliki hubungan yang sangat baik dengan para uskup Protestan di Inggris dan Amerika, maka ia dapat berguna dalam urusan internasional. Kepentingan internasional menuntut agar Meletius Metaxakis terpilih sebagai Patriark. Demikian pula keinginan Eleftherios Venizelos. Saya memikirkan usulan ini sepanjang malam. Kekacauan ekonomi terjadi di Patriarkat. Pemerintah di Athena telah berhenti mengirimkan subsidi, dan tidak ada sumber pendapatan lain. Gaji rutin belum dibayarkan selama sembilan bulan. Organisasi amal Patriarkat berada dalam keadaan ekonomi yang kritis. Karena alasan-alasan ini dan demi kebaikan rakyat [atau begitulah yang dipikirkan oleh hierarki yang tertipu] saya menerima tawaran itu” [19]. Dengan demikian, yang mengejutkan semua orang, keesokan harinya, 25 November 1921, Meletius Metaxakis menjadi Patriark Konstantinopel.
Sifat tidak kanonikal dari pemilihannya menjadi jelas ketika, dua hari sebelum pemilihan, 23 November 1921, ada usulan yang dibuat oleh Sinode Konstantinopel untuk menunda pemilihan atas dasar kanonikal. Mayoritas anggota memilih untuk menerima usulan ini. Pada saat yang sama, tepat pada hari pemilihan, para uskup yang telah memilih untuk menunda pemilihan digantikan oleh uskup lain. Langkah ini memungkinkan terpilihnya Meletius sebagai Patriark. Akibatnya, mayoritas uskup Patriarkat Konstantinopel yang telah diabaikan bertemu di Tesalonika. Mereka mengumumkan bahwa, “pemilihan Meletius Metaxakis dilakukan dengan pelanggaran terang-terangan terhadap kanon suci,” dan mengusulkan untuk melakukan, “pemilihan yang sah dan kanonikal untuk Patriark Konstantinopel.” Meskipun demikian, Meletius dikukuhkan di Takhta Patriarkat [20].
Di bawah tekanan Meletius, Patriarkat Konstantinopel menerima keabsahan tahbisan Anglikan pada tahun 1922 — suatu tindakan yang bahkan diprotes oleh Roma. Kemudian pada tahun 1923 Meletius memprakarsai Kongres “Pan-Ortodoks” (10 Mei–8 Juni). Pada tanggal 1 Juni, para pendeta dan awam yang tidak puas dengan Patriark yang inovatif tersebut mengadakan pertemuan yang berakhir dengan serangan terhadap Phanar dengan tujuan untuk menggulingkan Meletius dan mengusirnya dari Konstantinopel. Pada tanggal 1 Juli 1923, dengan dalih sakit dan membutuhkan perawatan medis, Meletius meninggalkan Konstantinopel. Pada tanggal 20 September 1923, di bawah tekanan dari pemerintah Yunani dan melalui campur tangan Uskup Agung Chrysostomos dari Athena, Meletius pensiun sebagai Patriark.
Meletius kemudian dinominasikan sebagai kandidat kedua untuk Takhta Patriarkat Aleksandria pada tahun 1926. Kandidat pertama adalah Metropolitan Nicholas dari Nubia. Menurut prosedur normal, kandidat pertama seharusnya terpilih sebagai Patriark. Namun demikian, pemerintah Mesir, setelah menunda selama setahun penuh, mengukuhkan Meletius sebagai Patriark pada tanggal 20 Mei 1926. Sebagai Patriark, “dengan mengorbankan ketidaksetujuan dan perpecahan,” Meletius melembagakan Kalender Baru di Patriarkat Aleksandria [21]. Sementara masih menjadi Patriark Konstantinopel, ia telah menjalin hubungan dengan “Gereja Hidup” Rusia. Sinode “Gereja Hidup” menulis pada kesempatan pemilihan Meletius sebagai Patriark Aleksandria, “Sinode Suci [para pembaharu] mengingat dengan harapan terbaik yang tulus dukungan moral yang Yang Mulia tunjukkan kepada kami ketika Anda masih menjadi Patriark Konstantinopel dengan memasuki persekutuan dengan kami sebagai satu-satunya organ yang berkuasa secara sah dari Gereja Ortodoks Rusia” [22]. Sebagai kepala delegasi gerejawi, Meletius Metaxakis ikut serta dalam Konferensi di Lambeth pada tahun 1930 dan melakukan langkah-langkah untuk pembicaraan mengenai persatuan dengan kaum Anglikan [23].
Akhirnya, meskipun sakit kritis, Meletius menawarkan diri sebagai kandidat Patriark Yerusalem, tetapi tidak ada pemilihan yang terjadi. Metropolitan Methodius Kondostanos (1942–1967) menulis, “Pengasingan dari Tanah Suci, dari Kition, dari Athena, dari Konstantinopel, Meletius Metaxakis — jiwa yang tidak stabil, gelisah, haus kekuasaan, iblis jahat — tidak ragu-ragu untuk merebut Takhta Yerusalem bahkan dari Alexandria dalam keinginannya untuk memperluas kekuasaannya” [24]. Meletius Metaxakis meninggal pada tanggal 28 Juli 1935, dan dimakamkan di Kairo. Setelah mempertimbangkan semua informasi biografis ini, seharusnya tidak mengherankan bahwa Meletius adalah seorang Mason. Sehubungan dengan pemilihannya sebagai Metropolitan Kition, Meletius diinisiasi ke dalam Masonry di Konstantinopel sebagai anggota Loge Masonik “Harmoni,” seperti yang dilaporkan dalam Jurnal Pythagore-Equerre (Vol. IV, Bagian 7–8, 1935) [25].
Pada tahun 1967, panitia pendiri “Masonic Bulletin,” jurnal dari Great Lodge of Greece menugaskan Mason, Alexander Zervuldakis, untuk menulis sebuah monografi di mana ia menggambarkan Meletius sebagai, “bintang bersinar lain yang berkilauan dan menerangi cakrawala Gereja Ortodoks Yunani” [26]. Zervuldakis menyusun biografi terperinci tentang Meletius Metaxakis, yang ia temui ketika Metaxakis masih berada di Konstantinopel selama masa-masa tragis bagi Yunani setelah kekalahan dalam perang tahun 1922 dengan Turki. “Saya menyapanya seperti seorang Mason menyapa Mason lainnya,” tulis Zervuldakis; Metaxakis tersenyum dan berkata, “Saya mengerti saya”[27]. Dari monografi Zervuldakis kita tahu bahwa Meletius pertama kali bertemu dengan para Mason di Konstantinopel pada tahun 1906. Kerja sama penuh antara Meletius dan para Mason Yunani di Konstantinopel dimulai pada tahun 1908. Para Mason yang ditemuinya mulai bertindak tegas untuk membuat “semangat investigatif dan rasa ingin tahu Meletius… memutuskan… untuk mengikuti contoh banyak uskup Inggris dan asing lainnya dan untuk… mendedikasikan dirinya pada misteri tersembunyi Masonry”[28]. Meletius terdaftar di loji “Harmoni” di Konstantinopel sebagai No. 44. Ia diinisiasi pada tahun 1909. Mengenai hal ini, Zervuldakis menekankan, “Saya ingat kegembiraan dan kebanggaan yang diungkapkan oleh seluruh persaudaraan atas inisiasi Meletius ketika ia terpilih menjadi anggota loji kami”[29]. “Setelah inisiasinya,” lanjut Zervuldakis, “Saudara Meletius menyebarkan aktivitas Masonik ke mana pun ia pergi selama seluruh perjalanan hidupnya yang penuh gejolak”[30]. “Hanya sedikit,” simpul Mason Yunani itu, “yang, seperti Saudara Meletius, menerima Masonry dan menjadikannya pengalaman hidup mereka. Merupakan kerugian besar bagi kami bahwa ia dipanggil ke kekekalan begitu cepat”[31].
Para pendukung utama Meletius dalam reformasi kalender adalah orang-orang yang disebutkan secara singkat di atas: Metropolitan Chrysostomos Papadopoulos dan Gamilkar Alivizatos, profesor sekolah teologi Athena. Pada tahun 1923, pemerintah Yunani membentuk sinode pemilihan yang terdiri dari lima orang yang memilih, dengan selisih tiga suara, Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, yang saat itu profesor teologi, sebagai Uskup Agung Athena pada tanggal 23 Februari 1923. Fakultas sekolah teologi Athena menyiapkan rekomendasi untuknya, “atas inisiatif Profesor G. Alivizatos dan dengan persetujuan E. Venizelos dan Patriark Metaxakis” [32]. Pemilihan tersebut tidak kanonik [33]. Meskipun demikian, Chrysostomos ditahbiskan sebagai Uskup Agung Athena dua hari kemudian oleh tiga uskup yang telah memilihnya. Selama periode ini, Metropolitan Germanos (Karavangelos), yang disebutkan di atas, bersiap untuk melarikan diri dari Athena. Banyak temannya mengusulkannya sebagai kandidat Uskup Agung Athena, tetapi Perdana Menteri Gonatas dan para uskup sinodal meyakinkan mereka untuk memilih Chrysostomos Papadopoulos [34].
Dengan demikian kita melihat bahwa reformasi Kalender Gereja yang dilembagakan pada Kongres “Pan-Ortodoks” tahun 1923 diciptakan dan dibuat terutama oleh uskup Athena yang tidak kanonik, Chrysostomos, Metropolitan Meletius Metaxakis yang dicopot, yang secara ilegal terpilih ke Takhta Konstantinopel, dan Profesor G. Alivizatos. Kedua “hierarki” tersebut mempertahankan hubungan dekat dengan kaum Protestan di Amerika dan Inggris. Keduanya memperoleh jabatan mereka melalui campur tangan aktif otoritas sekuler. Oleh karena itu, keduanya wajib mematuhi keinginan lingkaran Masonik dan politik yang telah mengajukan mereka sebagai kandidat. Seperti yang ditulis Santo Basil Agung, “Mereka yang memperoleh kekuasaan adalah budak dari mereka yang membantu mereka memperolehnya.”
Selama masa jabatannya yang tidak kanonik sebagai Uskup Agung Athena, Freemason Meletius Metaxakis mengajukan pertanyaan tentang perubahan Kalender Gereja di hadapan Sinode Gereja Yunani. Meletius menawarkan untuk membentuk komisi guna mempelajari masalah ini. Gereja Yunani menyetujui sarannya dan mengeluarkan arahan yang diperlukan. Komisi mengirimkan teks final berikut kepada Sinode: “Menurut pendapat komisi, perubahan kalender hanya dimungkinkan jika tidak melanggar ajaran kanonik dan dogmatis, dan disetujui oleh semua Gereja Ortodoks otosefalus — pertama-tama oleh Patriarkat Konstantinopel, yang harus diberi kesempatan untuk menunjukkan inisiatif dalam semua keputusan yang bersifat demikian. Lebih lanjut, kita tidak boleh hanya beralih ke kalender Gregorian, tetapi kalender baru yang lebih akurat secara ilmiah harus dibuat, bebas dari ketidakakuratan kalender Julian dan Gregorian”[35]. Usulan yang lemah dan diplomatis ini menganjurkan, tanpa argumen khusus, perlunya memperkenalkan Kalender Gereja yang sepenuhnya baru. Pada saat yang sama, hal itu berupaya untuk menjaga kepatutan yang diperlukan dengan berbicara tentang dasar kanonik dan dogmatis dari setiap perubahan dan perlunya keputusan konsili. Tuntutan-tuntutan ini kemudian akan diabaikan.
Keputusan komisi tersebut merupakan langkah baru menuju reformasi kalender yang sangat diinginkan oleh Meletius dan rekan-rekannya. Sinode Yunani, pada sidangnya tanggal 20 Mei 1919, dengan suara bulat menerima pendapat Meletius bahwa “pemerintah harus bebas untuk mengadopsi kalender Gregorian sebagai kalender Eropa dan, sampai kalender ilmiah baru ditetapkan, Gereja akan terus menggunakan kalender Julian” [36]. Sinode menyampaikan pendapatnya kepada pemerintah bersamaan dengan keputusan komisi mengenai reformasi kalender. Meletius mengucapkan kata-kata terkenal berikut selama sidang: “Situasi Gereja di Rusia sekarang telah berubah dan kemungkinan untuk lebih dekat dengan Barat lebih menguntungkan.” Lebih lanjut, Meletius menekankan, “Kami menganggap reformasi kalender itu sangat penting” [37].
After his meteoric and uncanonical elevation to the Throne of Constantinople, Meletius Metaxakis continued his stubborn and methodical work for calendar change. He took upon himself the “initiative” recommended by the Synod of the Church of Greece’s commission, and issued an encyclical on February 3, 1923, “To the Most Blessed and Honorable Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Cyprus, Greece and Romania” [38] introducing the question of changing the Church Calendar. The epistle cites the following motivations behind the calendar reforms: “The question of the calendar has been long standing but has taken on a special importance in our day,” [39] when, “the necessity of using a common, universal calendar familiar to Europe and America becomes more and more evident” [40]. One Orthodox government after another has accepted the “European calendar.” The difficulty of using two calendars in social life is self-evident. Therefore, the desire to find and to establish one common calendar for social and religious circles has arisen on all sides. It is necessary not only so that every Orthodox Christian may function harmoniously as a citizen and a Christian, but also so that we may advance universal Christian unity. We are all called to this task in the name of the Lord by celebrating together His Nativity and Resurrection” [41]. Meletius gave these same reasons during his introductory speech at the opening of the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress [42].
The basis for Church Calendar reform obviously does not have its roots in tradition, theology, liturgical life or the canonical rules of the Orthodox Church, but rather in the one-sided, semi-religious, semi-social approach of the ecumenical cult which is grounded in a political-religious ideal of “Christian unity.” In his epistle, Meletius Metaxakis calls upon the “representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches to agree to the forming of a commission comprised of one or two representatives of every Church to meet in Constantinople immediately after the celebration of Pascha, in order to make a detailed study of the calendar question and other possibly urgent Pan-Orthodox questions, and to indicate the means for their canonical solution” [43].
Meletius’s epistle did not meet with a positive response from the older, more ancient Patriarchates (after Constantinople); those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned commission began its work on May 10, 1923, under the auspices of Meletius. Nine members took part in the sessions: six bishops, one archimandrite, and two laymen. The representatives of Constantinople were: Patriarch Meletius IV as president, Metropolitan Callikos of Kizik, and the layman V. Antoniadis, a Professor at the Halki Theological Institute. There was one representative from Cyprus: Metropolitan Basil of Nicea (later Ecumenical Patriarch, 1925–1929). The Serbian Church had two representatives: Metropolitan Gabriel of Montenegro and Milutin Milankovitch, a laymen and professor of mathematics and mechanics at Belgrade University. From the Church of Greece there was one representative: Metropolitan James of Drach. From the Romanian Church there was one representative: Archimandrite Jules (Scriban).
Archbishop Alexander (Nomolovsky) of North America and the Aleutian Islands, who at that time was of unclear canonical status, did not actually represent anyone (serious canonical charges had been brought against him by the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad, as a result of which he transferred to the Evlogian Exarchate, under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate).
Besides these nine participants, Archbishop Anastassy (Gribanovsky), later Metropolitan of Kishinev and Hotinsk, a member of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad, who was at that time in Constantinople, also took part. He announced at the first session on May 10, 1923, that he had no “definite instructions from the Russian Hierarchs at Karlovtsy concerning the calendar question” [44]. He soon abandoned this unusual meeting.
To call such a church forum “Pan-Orthodox” is, to put it mildly, presumptuous. The representatives of the three elder sees after Constantinople (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) refused to take part. The Russian Church, the Archbishop of Sinai and the Bulgarian Church (which the Ecumenical Patriarch considered to be schismatic at that time) also did not participate. It is noteworthy that more than half of the local Churches were not represented, and the authority of those who did participate is questionable as well. According to the opinion of the famous canonist and theologian, S. Troitsky, who analyzed the ecclesiological-legal aspect of this question, the members of the commission had no right, at the time of the meeting, to express the opinions of their Churches since the local Churches had not yet formulated their decisions on the questions that went into the protocol of the congress. In such circumstances the delegates could only, in fact, express “their own, personal opinions,” [45] or, at best, the opinion of their synods, which themselves had no right to decide general Church, canonical or even more importantly, dogmatic questions. Professor Troitsky defines this “Pan-Orthodox Congress” from an ecclesiological point of view as “a private meeting of a few people, who had as their agenda the examination of various questions which troubled the Orthodox Church at that time, concerning which, they expressed their opinions” [46]. Nevertheless, in spite of the canonical irregularity of the congress’ make-up and its representatives, Meletius very self-assuredly announced that, “We work as a commission of the whole Church” [47].
The Orthodox Congress of 1923
As we can see, considered as an organ of legislation, the congress of 1923 was in fact a defective precedent. It was created and began its activity as “a Commission of Orthodox Churches” [48] or “Pan-Orthodox Commission,” [49] and changed its title to “Pan-Orthodox Congress” during its third session, on May 18, 1923. Professor Troitsky is perfectly justified in noting that for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church, which up to this time had only one organ of general church legislation—the Councils, some sort of “Pan-Orthodox” congress took this task upon itself, modeled after Pan-Anglican conferences and political conferences and congresses [50]. In his memorandum of November 14, 1929 to the Archepiscopal Synod of the Church of Greece, Metropolitan Ireneaus of Kassandria (+1945) wrote indignantly: “What right does that upstart [Meletius Metaxakis] have to create a Pan-Orthodox Congress without consulting the Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Throne? What law or canon gives the representative of one local Church the right to change the decisions of all the Eastern Patriarchs concerning the question of the calendar and Paschalia to, which was finalized by the illustrious Patriarchs Joachim III of Constantinople, Meletius Pigas of Alexandria, Joachim of Antioch and Sophronius of Jerusalem? Is it possible that in civil matters a lower court can reverse a decision of a higher court?”[51]
To summarize the above we might conclude: In agreement with the holy canons, church questions of local and general significance are to be discussed exclusively by a Council of Bishops [52] who have flocks and dioceses, not by “congresses,” “meetings,” or “conferences.” From a legal-ecclesiastical point of view, the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress in Constantinople was uncanonical in its make-up, authority, and establishment. Therefore, its decisions, made in the name of the entire Orthodox Church, were made without any authority, and have no significance for the local Orthodox Churches. Furthermore, the very content of the decisions is in direct opposition to the canons of the Orthodox Church.
Let us briefly review the work of the 1923 congress. It spanned eleven sessions from May 11 to June 8, 1923, and was not concerned exclusively with the question of reforming the Church Calendar. At the second session (May 11, 1923) Patriarch Meletius listed the following “canonical and ecclesiastical questions,” concerning which the commission was to formulate its opinion:
1) The question of transferring the Feast Days of major saints to the nearest Sunday with the goal of lessening the number of holidays.
2) The question of impediments to marriage.
3) The question of marriage and the clergy:
a) The Episcopate and marriage;
b) Second marriages for widowed priests and deacons;
c) Whether it is absolutely essential for the sacrament of ordination to follow the sacrament of marriage;
4) The question of church services;
5) The question of the fasts;
6) The necessity of calling a Pan-Orthodox Council annually [53].
In addition to the above six points, questions were raised concerning the canonical age for ordination, the question of clergy cutting their hair and beards, and clerical dress. These questions, headed by the question of the calendar, were presented for discussion on the basis of the renovationist tendencies typical of post-war Orthodox liberalism. These tendencies were characterized by: a desire to replace the Julian Calendar for immovable and movable feasts, and the possibility of allowing that Pascha should become an immovable feast, fixed to a specific Sunday; a willingness to accept any new, more scientifically accurate calendar reckoning (not even excluding the renunciation of the seven-day week); permitting married bishops, second marriages for clergy and marriage after ordination; and a shortening of church services and fasts.
The possibility of uniting the Orthodox and Anglican Churches was also discussed. At the congress’s fifth session (May 23, 1923) the former Anglican bishop of Oxford, Gore, was present as a guest along with the pastor Bexton who was accompanying him. Gore was given a seat to the right of Patriarch Meletius who entrusted him with two documents: a petition from 5,000 Anglican priests in whose opinion there was nothing to prevent union with the Orthodox; and another, containing the conditions for such a union [54]. Gore expressed his great joy at being present at the Pan-Orthodox Congress, “where we have gathered in order to discuss various church questions and, most importantly, the question of the calendar” [55]. “For us, living in the West” the Anglican bishop emphasized, “it would be a source of great spiritual satisfaction to have the possibility of celebrating together [with the Orthodox] the major Christian feasts: the Nativity, Easter, and Pentecost” [56]. Recall how Meletius Metaxakis himself indicated in his epistle to the heads of the seven local Orthodox Churches that a calendar reform was imperative: “In order to facilitate the union of all Christians so that all who call upon the name of the Lord might celebrate His Nativity and Resurrection on the same day” [57]. In fact, only three years after the publication of the encyclical was announced by the Patriarchate at Constantinople in 1920, there already existed the possibility of making the first step towards union with the heterodox which was envisioned by the encyclical: “The acceptance of one calendar for the universal celebration of the great Christian feasts” [58]. It comes as no surprise that long before the congress accepted the above decisions Patriarch Meletius turned to the Anglican bishop Gore asking him “to inform the Archbishop of Canterbury that we are well disposed to accept the New Calendar which you in the West have decided upon” [59]. These words candidly express the tendency which had been implied in the premeditated decision of the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress concerning the calendar question.
The main issue discussed by the congress was the acceptance of the so-called “New Julian” calendar, or the “Revised Julian” calendar, the project of Professor M. Milankovitch, one of the delegates in the congress. In fact, this [new] calendar corresponds with the Gregorian calendar until the year 2800, when a difference of one day will occur in leap years. Nonetheless, this difference will even out in the year 2900. What an amazing discovery! Thus it becomes possible to “celebrate the major Christian feast days simultaneously with the heterodox” and, at the same time, traditionally minded Orthodox Christians can be assured that they will have not adopted the Roman Catholic calendar. Patriarch Meletius, using typical Jesuit sophistry to placate those who opposed the calendar reform, during the fourth session of the congress (May 21, 1923) read out a telegram from Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem stating, “A change in the Church Calendar is of no use and will not be accepted by our Patriarchate because it would place us in an unfavorable position in relation to the holy places of pilgrimage and to the Latins” [60]. Meletius responded by announcing, “In addition, the Church at Jerusalem does not desire to adopt the Gregorian Calendar and celebrate Pascha with the Roman Catholics. We must clarify the fact that we are not adopting the Gregorian Calendar and that in a certain number of years a difference will appear between the Orthodox and Catholics in [the date of] the celebration of Pascha. Therefore, the qualms of the Church at Jerusalem are, in part, appeased “[61]. Of course, Meletius “omits” the specifics that “a certain number of years” is, in actuality, a full nine centuries!
Decisions were made in Constantinople on June 5 and 6 concerning the following:
1) “The correction” of the Julian calendar and the determining of the date of celebration of Pascha “on the basis of astronomical calculations.”
2) The conditions under which the Church would take part in discussions about a New Calendar, “which is more accurate, both scientifically and practically.”
3) The marriage of priests and deacons after ordination.
4) A second marriage of widowed priests and deacons.
5) Various other categories: the youngest possible age for ordination to the three levels of the priesthood; the “material and spiritual well-being” of pastors; the hair and exterior appearance of clergy [i.e., the cutting of the beard and hair, wearing of the rassa]; the keeping of monastic vows; impediments to marriage; the celebration of saints’ days during the week as non-working days; the question of fasts.
6) The celebration of the 1600th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325–1925), and the gathering of a Pan-Orthodox Council.
7) The question of the “Living Church” Council which took place in Moscow in June 1923, at which Patriarch Tikhon, then in prison, was defrocked [62].
The text of the decision to “correct” the Julian calendar and change the Julian Paschalia [63] ends with the words, “This reform of the Julian calendar is not a stumbling block to further change in the calendar that the other Christian Churches might like to make” [64]. This concept was further developed and concretely stated in the second decision where it was literally said, “The Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople… requests that the Ecumenical Patriarchate announce to the people, after an exchange of opinions with the other Orthodox Churches, that the Orthodox most willingly desire to adopt in the future the New Calendar in which the order of days of the week [that is, seven] will be maintained, although it does not bind itself to such an opinion if the other churches agree to adopt a new calendar which would abolish the usual number of days in a week” [65]. Further, it was indicated that, in agreement with the other “Christian Churches,” the Orthodox Church was prepared to celebrate the Lord’s Pascha as a fixed day on a specified Sunday, with the desire that “this fixed Sunday would correspond to the actual [historical] day of Resurrection of the Lord, which was to be determined by scientific methods” [66].
These four decisions of the 1923 congress were promulgated in the typical style of Orthodox modernism, full of exhortations about “harmony with contemporary life” and “ecumenical expansiveness.” The third and fourth decisions of the congress permitted the marriage of priests and deacons after ordination and second marriages for widowed clergy, although this was contrary to Church Tradition and canons (26th Apostolic canon; 3rd and 4th canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) [67]. In the Council’s fifth resolution it was considered right for clergy to cut their hair and wear lay clothing outside of church. Local Churches were called upon to decide each separate case where saints’ days would be celebrated on weekdays, “until a new calendar would be established in which the celebration of specific feast days could be fixed only on Sundays in order to lessen the number of holidays” [68]. A new Menaion would of necessity be created in order for this system to work in practice. During the sixth resolution a request was made that the Ecumenical Patriarchate take upon itself the initiative of calling an Ecumenical Council in order to decide “all questions concerning the Orthodox Church at the present time” [69].
One could appraise the activity and decisions of the “Pan-Orthodox” Council of 1923 with the words of Saint Athanasius the Great, “All of this without the consent of the whole [catholic] Church” [70]. In fact, the first five resolutions of the congress are in total contradiction to the Tradition and canonical norms of the Catholic, Orthodox Church. The abolition of the Julian Paschalia — a break with the seventh Apostolic canon and the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council, which the Antiochian Council refers to — potentially places upon the congress at Constantinople a serious canonical sanction. The celebration of the Lord’s Pascha is categorically forbidden on the same day as the Jewish Passover in the above-mentioned canons. Following the New-Julian Paschalia (which is, in fact, the same as the Gregorian), the Resurrection of Christ sometimes falls on the same day as the Jewish Passover, and often before it (which is also forbidden). It is noteworthy that, according to the resolution of the Holy Fathers of the Council of Antioch, those who violate the decisions concerning the celebration of Pascha must be excommunicated from the Church without previous investigation of their violation. Such a strict sentence is rarely encountered in the canons.
A similar spirit is encountered in the resolutions compiled by the sigilliums of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1583 and 1584, and the ecumenical epistle of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V of 1756, which categorically condemned those who adopted the Gregorian Calendar and Paschalia. Afraid of these sanctions and aware of their enormous canonical responsibility in light of a change in the only canonical Paschalia, the Julian, not one of the local Orthodox Churches which had adopted the New Calendar for the celebration of the cycle of feasts (that is, the Menaion) dared institute the Gregorian Paschalia (with the exception of the Church of Finland). Thus, the New Style Churches began, in practice, to use two calendars simultaneously: the Gregorian for fixed feast days, and the Julian for movable ones. Not a single local Church adopted the third, fourth and fifth resolutions which cried out in contradiction of Church Tradition and canons. Even if one does not consider important the uncanonical nature of the congress at Constantinople with regards to its make-up and authority, the irregularity of its actions, and the anti-Orthodox essence of the congress which, ironically, called itself “Pan-Orthodox,” is sufficient to discredit it.
This Sigilium supposedly from 1583 was later discovered by Old Calendarist Bishop, Metropolitan Cyprian II of Oropos & Fili, in 2011 to be a forgery. Conservative Modernists often attempt to dismiss the entire Julian Calendar argument based on this document.
Besides, even during the sessions themselves a huge wave of disfavor arose. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), who himself was one of the initiators of the calendar reform, wrote, “Unfortunately, the Eastern Patriarchs who refused to take part in the congress rejected all of its decisions by one act alone,” their absence [71]. The Mason, A. Zervudakis, in his monograph on Meletius Metaxakis wrote, “Meletius met with great dissension when he decided to adopt in Constantinople some American traditions as well as to his innovative views concerning the calendar, the Paschalia, the marriage of clergy, etc., which instigated problems and great resistance” [72]. Remember that on June 1, 1923, a group of religious leaders and laymen gathered in Constantinople for a meeting which grew into an attack on the Patriarchate, with the goal of deposing Meletius and evicting him from the city. In spite of this, the Synod of Constantinople, under the presidency of Meletius, circulated a written announcement to all the local Orthodox Churches on June 25, expressing his expectation of their “general approval” of the resolutions on the calendar reform, and their confirmation of “the resolutions of the congress as those of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church [sic!] [73]. Nonetheless, the Mason, Meletius Metaxakis’, ambition met with serious resistance. Patriarch Photius of Alexandria (1900–1925), in his epistle of June 25, 1923, to Patriarch Gregory IV of Antioch (1906–1928), categorized the calendar reform as “pointless, uncanonical and harmful” [74]. In the words of Patriarch Photius the resolutions of the Congress at Constantinople “smell of heresy and schism” [75].
In the epistle of October 7, 1923, of Patriarch Gregory IV to the Ecumenical Patriarch, he indicates that the calendar was adopted too quickly and that its institution was “untimely and suspicious” [76]. The Patriarch of Antioch sent a copy of Patriarch Photius’ epistle to the Russian Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in Karlovtsy with a gramota in which was written, “You can clearly ascertain the opinion of three of the Eastern patriarchs with regard to the questions raised by the meeting at Constantinople” [77]. Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem (1897–1931), in his telegram to the Patriarch of Constantinople also emphasized, “For our Patriarchate it is impossible to accept a change in the Church Calendar since it will place us in a very disadvantageous position in the holy places of pilgrimage in relationship to the Roman Catholics because of the danger of proselytism” [78].
Patriarch Meletius IV was not above resorting to deception in order to attain his anti-Orthodox goals. In his letter of July 10, 1923, he attempted to deceive Archbishop Seraphim of Finland into believing that the New Calendar had been accepted for church use, “in agreement with the general opinion and resolutions of the Orthodox Churches” [79] Patriarch Tikhon was also led astray in the same manner. Under the false impression that the calendar reform had been accepted by the entire Orthodox Church, he published an edict introducing the New Calendar in the jurisdiction of the Russian Church. This innovation was decisively rejected by the people. When the truth finally became apparent the Patriarchal resolution was repealed. Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev, in the name of the Russian Hierarchs Abroad, declared that “The calendar reform cannot be accepted by the Russian Church inasmuch as it contradicts the holy canons and ancient tradition of Church practice sanctified by the Ecumenical Councils” [80].
Patriarch Demetrius of Serbia informed Meletius in his letter of June 8/21, 1923 that he would agree to the resolution of the congress concerning the change of calendar only “on the condition that it be accepted simultaneously in all the Orthodox Churches” [81]. Archbishop Kyrill of Crete, in his letter and telegram of August 23/September 5, 1923, suggested “to postpone the acceptance of the resolution until an agreement be made by all the Churches, in order to avoid schism in the Orthodox Church” [82]. Only Metropolitan Miron (Cristea) of Bucharest announced, in his letter of December 17, 1923, that the Romanian Orthodox Church accepted the decision of the congress, specifying that it would be put into practice in 1924 [83].
The fact that the local Churches were subjected to external pressure with the goal of forcing them to accept the decisions on calendar reform is evident in the following revealing announcement of Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens: “The Romanian and Serbian ambassadors to Athens constantly questioned the Archbishop of Athens concerning the delay of the adoption of the congress’s resolutions” [84]. In one report of the Church of Greece after the New Calendar was instituted there in 1924 we read, “Unfortunately, this change [of the calendar] was not accomplished by means of inquiry and preparation, but rather primarily under the influence of extreme factions” [85]. The crude interference of civil authorities in the adaptation of the New Calendar for church use in Greece, Romania and Finland is proven by the well-known wave of violence used against those Orthodox Christians who dared to remain faithful to the Faith of their Fathers.
Even Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens, himself one of the most active propagators of calendar reform, found it expedient to discuss the Church Calendar question again at the synod meeting of the bishops of the Church of Greece in connection with the persistent demands of Patriarch Photius of Alexandria to call an Ecumenical Council [86]. As a matter of fact, the Constantinople Patriarchate itself, in connection with the sixth resolution of the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress, [87] desired to call an Ecumenical Council in 1925. However, the Serbian Church, after the bitter experience of the congress of 1923, expressed the desire that all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches take part; that serious preparation be done before the Ecumenical Council take place by commissions of the autocephalous Churches, and that a general preparatory conference or pro-synod be held [88].
In fact, in connection with preparations for the Ecumenical Council an inter-Orthodox commission was held in 1930 at Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos. According to Metropolitan Ireneaus of Cassandria, the representative of the Serbian Patriarchate, Metropolitan Nicholas (Velimirović +1956), a well-educated and righteous hierarch, stated that the Serbian Church would not participate in the inter-Orthodox commission unless it was assured that it would have nothing in common with the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress at Constantinople which adopted resolutions concerning the calendar change. “If this condition is not met the Serbs will condemn the Ecumenical Patriarchate,” reported Metropolitan Irenius [89]. According to Chrysostomos, the former Metropolitan of Florina (+1955), the first hierarch of the Greek Old-Calendar Church, the representatives of the Serbian and Polish Churches considered the leaders of the local Orthodox Churches who had adopted the New Calendar to be “in essence schismatics,” and refrained from prayerful communion with them [90].
Nonetheless, in spite of the reaction against the decisions of the Congress of 1923 concerning the calendar reform, and in spite of the categorical refusal to accept its other anti-canonical resolutions, the so-called “New-Julian Calendar” was gradually accepted by the governing bodies of many local Churches [91]. Meletius’ successor, Metropolitan Gregory VII, who was surrounded by followers and disciples of Meletius, introduced the New Style into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1924. The Church of Greece accepted the New Calendar on March 1, 1924. Archbishop Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos) of Athens must have forgotten the words he wrote while still an Archimandrite in a report given to the Greek government by the five member commission on the question of calendar reform in January, 1923: “Not a single one of them [local Orthodox Churches] can separate from the others and adopt the New Calendar without becoming schismatic in relation to the others” [92]. The Romanian Church adopted the “New-Julian” Calendar on October 1, 1924 and as a reward was granted the status of Patriarchate [93]. As mentioned above, Meletius Metaxakis was forced, in his capacity as Patriarch of Alexandria, to introduce the New Calendar into the Church of Alexandria by Arabs in America, without whose material subsidies the Antiochian Patriarchate could not exist, according to a statement made by Metropolitan Alexander of Emess in July, 1948 [94].
This depressing list of facts could be further expanded, but that which has been reported is sufficient to prove the tragic consequences of the “Pan-Orthodox” Congress at Constantinople. The adoption even in part of the congress’ anti-canonical resolutions on the Church Calendar reform destroys the centuries old liturgical unity of the Orthodox Church, and invites division in the local Churches themselves between adherents of the patristic Church Calendar and those who adopt the “Revised-Julian” Calendar. The “Pan-Orthodox,” or actually, as we have shown, anti-Orthodox congress at Constantinople was the first break in the link of Orthodox unity in our century. The congress admitted the Trojan horse of ecumenism into the Orthodox Church, from whose womb newer and newer false prophets of Babel continue to emerge, striving to destroy the sacred altars of Orthodoxy in order to construct the temple of heresy and error on Her ruins.
References
1) Sibev T., The Church Calendar Question, Synodal Publishing, 1968, pp 33–34, 54, 58, 62, 64 (in Bulgarian).
2) Ibid., pp 33–34.
3) Troitsky C., “Together We Will Struggle With Danger,” Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1950, No. 2, p. 46 (in Russian).
4) Archimandrite Constantine, Pastoral Theology, Part II, Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Monastery, Jordanville, New York, 1961, pp 9–10, (in Russian).
5) Tsetsis, G. “The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Establishment of the World Council of Churches,” Katerini, 1988, pp 31–51 (in Greek).
6) Quoted from, Seventy Years of Ecumenistic Apostasy, Chapters 18–21, p.99 (in Greek).
7) Quoted from, The Inspiration and Moving Spirits of the Innovations: The Two Luthers of the Orthodox Church, chapter 17, p. 74 (in Greek).
8) Buevsky, A., The Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletius IV, and the Russian Orthodox Church, 1953, No.3, p. 30 (in Russian).
9) The Inspiration and Moving Spirits…, chapter 17, p.74.
10) Ibid.
11) Mpatistatou, D. Proceeding and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople, 10.5–8.6.1923, Athens, 1982 (in Greek).
12) Buevsky, p. 29.
13) Delimbasis, A. D., Pascha of the Lord, Creation, Renewal, and Apostasy, Athens, 1985, p.661 (in Greek).
14) The closest co-workers in ideology of Meletius Metaxakis were Metropolitan Germanos (Strinopoulos), who later became the exarch of Western Europe and the permanent representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at ecumenical conferences, Archimandrite Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), who later became Archbishop of Athens, and the famous ecumenist, G. Alivizatos, professor of theology in Athens.
15) Delimbasis, A.D. op. cit., p. 661.
16) Ibid.
17) Ibid.
18) Mpatistatou, D., op. cit., page d.
19) See Delimbasis A. D., p.662.
20) Ibid. p. 663.
21) See The Church Herald, No. 13, 1929, p. 152 (in Bulgarian).
22) See quote from Buevsky, op. cit., p. 36.
23) The council of all the bishops of the Anglican Church which is held at the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury every ten years. At the Lambeth conference decisions were discussed and made concerning catechism, morality, Church order and practice, relations between Churches, etc.
24) Quoted from, Mpatistatou, D,. op. cit., p. e.
25) Quoted from Troitsky, op. cit., p. 37.
26) “The Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis (1871–1935) a) the Masons, b) the Innovators, c) the Ecumenists,” OEM, 1990, I–XII, Chaps. 18–21, p. 149 (in Greek).
27) Ibid.
28) Ibid., p. 151.
29) Ibid., p. 152.
30) Ibid., P. 151.
31) Ibid., p. 152.
32) Delimbasis, A. D., op. cit., p. 663.
33) Ibid.
34) Ibid.
35) Delimbasis, A.D., Pascha of the Lord, Creation, Renewal, and Apostasy, Athens, 1985, pp. 650-651 [In Greek].
36) Ibid., p.652.
37) Ibid., p.651.
38) Mpatistatou, D. Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Council in Constantinople, Athens, 1982, p.5 [in Greek].
39) Ibid.
40) Ibid.
41) Ibid. p 6.
42) Ibid. pp. 13-14.
43) Ibid., pp. 6-7.
44) Ibid., p.20.
45) Troitsky, S. “Concerning the Question of Second Marriages for Priests,” Church Herald, September 1949, p.1-2 [in Bulgarian].
46) Archimandrite Seraphim, An Orthodox View of the Old and New Style Calendar, typewritten [in Bulgarian].
47) Proceedings and Decisions… op. cit. p.36.
48) Ibid., pp 11, 23.
49) Ibid., p. 29
50) Archimandrite Seraphim, Collected Essays, p.31 [in Bulgarian].
51) Patriark Ekumenis Meletios Metaxakis (1871-1935) a) para Mason, b) para Inovator, c) para Ekumenis OEM, 1990, I-XII, Bab 18-21, hlm. 155.
52) Kanon Apostolik ke-37, kanon ke-5 Konsili Ekumenis Pertama, kanon ke-19 Konsili Ekumenis Keenam, kanon ke-6 Konsili Ekumenis Ketujuh.
53) Risalah dan Keputusan…, op. cit, hlm. 24-26.
54) Patriark Ekumenis…, op. cit. Bab 18-21, hlm. 157.
55) Bab dan Keputusan…, op. cit. hal.86.
56) Ibid.
57) Ibid., hlm. 6.
58) “Inspirasi dan Semangat Penggerak Inovasi: Dua Luther dari Gereja Ortodoks,” OEM, Bab 17, hlm. 74.
59) Ibid., hlm. 88.
60) Risalah dan Keputusan…, op. cit. hal.69.
61) Ibid.
61) Ibid., hlm. 211-222.
63) Paragraf kedelapan dari resolusi ini berbunyi, “Penentuan bulan baru Paskah harus didasarkan pada perhitungan astronomi, sesuai dengan informasi ilmiah modern, Risalah dan Keputusan…, hlm. 212.
64) Risalah dan Keputusan…, op. cit. hal.212.
65) Ibid., hlm. 214.
66) Ibid., hlm. 215.
67) Ibid., hlm. 215-218.
68) Ibid., hlm. 210-220.
69) Ibid., hlm. 221.
70) BEPES, 33, 153.
71) Uskup Agung Chrysostomos, Reformasi Kalender Julian di Gereja Yunani, Athena, 1933, hlm. 31-38 [dalam bahasa Yunani].
72) Dikutip dari OEM, I-XII, 1990, paragraf 18-21, hlm. 154, adn. 12.
73) Orthodoxia, 1926, hlm. 62, dikutip dari Delimbasis, op. cit. hlm. 672.
74) Church Messenger, September 1923, No. 41, hlm. 6.
75) Sama seperti di atas
76) Delimbasis, op. cit. P. 672.
77) Church Messenger, 1923, No. 41, hlm. 6.
78) Ortodoksi, 1926, hal. 63 dan Delimbasis, op. cit., hal. 672.
79) Lihat Church News, No. 19 dan 20, 14-15 Januari 1928. X. 1923.
80) Ortodoksi, 1926, hal. 63 dan Delimbasis op. cit., hal. 672.
81) Ibid., hlm. 64-65.
82) Ibid., hlm. 68-69.
83) Ibid., hlm. 65-68.
84) Delimbasis, op. cit., hal. 673.
85) Gereja Yunani, Masalah Kalender, Athena, 1971, hlm. 7-8, dan OEM, 1989, Bab 17, hlm. 69.
86) Delimbasis, op. cit. P. 673.
87) Lihat resolusi kongres di atas, hlm. 5.
88) Lihat S. Troitsky, “Mari Kita Bersama-sama Melawan Bahaya,” Jurnal Patriarkat Moskow, 1950, No. 2, hlm. 46-47 [dalam bahasa Rusia].
89) Lihat OEM, 1989, Bab. 17, hal.69.
90) Ibid.
91) Seperti yang telah kami sebutkan, Kalender Baru hanya diadopsi untuk siklus perayaan Menaion, bertentangan dengan keputusan kongres, di mana perubahan dalam Paschalia dipelajari, tanggal Paskah Kristus terus ditentukan menurut kalender kuno, Paschalia Aleksandria.
92) Jurnal Pemerintah Kerajaan Yunani, bab pertama, 24/25 Januari 1923, No. 8, lihat juga OEM, 1989, Bab 17, hlm. 73.
93) Archimandrite Seraphim, Kumpulan Esai, hlm. 37-38.
94) Sama seperti di atas.
Singkatan
BEPES — Perpustakaan Para Bapa Gereja dan Penulis Gerejawi Yunani, yang disumbangkan oleh Dinas Apostolik Gereja Yunani.
OEM — Asal Usul dan Kemartiran Ortodoks, diterbitkan oleh Sinode Suci, tiga bulanan.
Sumber: Orthodox Life, No. 1 & 2, 1994.